Allowed

Maharaj Baksh Singh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Mining Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024/1573/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mining penalty matter: petitioner challenged a revisional order dismissing his revision, contending that a specific ground regarding non-consideration of an appellate order setting aside a penalty on an adjacent gata was ignored. The High Court found the ground was not considered, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter for fresh decision within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.02.2024 set aside; matter remitted for fresh decision within four weeks.

Maharaj Baksh Singh Vs the State of U.P… — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16404

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1573 of 2024 Petitioner :- Maharaj Baksh Singh Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Mining Civil Secrt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Tewari,Ashutosh Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shiv Prashad Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. no. 1 to 5.

¶6

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶7

The sole ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order impugned dated 02.02.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 111(R)/G&M(U.P.)/2023, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition, is that a specific ground taken in the revision was that with respect to gata no. 2966 which was adjacent to the gata of the petitioner although a penalty had been imposed by the District Magistrate vide order dated 20.12.2019 which upon an appeal being filed had been set aside by the order dated 09.10.2020, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition, yet with respect to the gata no. 3028 belonging to the petitioner the said penalty as imposed by the District Magistrate by means of the order impugned 20.12.2019 has been affirmed which fact has not been considered by the revisional court while dismissing the said revision. It is contended that the specific ground was urged as ground no. 10.11 in the revision, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition, and the same not being considered is an error which has been committed by the revisional court.

¶8

The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by Shri Shiv Prashad Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid, more specifically when the specific ground that had been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner before the revisional authority has not been considered, as such the order impugned dated 02.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, is set aside.

¶10

The matter is remitted to the revisional authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned considering the grounds raised in the memo of revision which order would be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶11

Order Date :- 23.2.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶12

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Maharaj Baksh Singh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Mining Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharaj Baksh Singh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Mining Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Guru Dayal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Shailendra Kumar Vs Suresh Chandra

Sara Parveen Vs Jibran Faheem

Radhika Kishan Chand Surtani and Another Vs Ist Addl. Judge Small Causes Lucknow

Allahabad Bank through the Regional Manager Vs the Central Govt.Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Lko.

Dinesh Chandra Awasthi Vs Smt. Bindeshwari